The Pagan Way
Jani
"Gavyn" <ga...@outbc.com> wrote in message
news:Y7FUa.360$QZ.182...@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
<SNIP>
> Fantastic post! I have never heard it put so succinctly and so honestly!
After you've heard as many whinges as the rest of us have about "How I got
myself thrown off yet another group", you may be less enthusiastic.
And if you're crossposting to uk.religion.pagan, please snip unnecessary
text. Thanks.
Jani
Lush
that egroup any less abusively than you post here.
Lush
"The Talesinator" <the_wi...@XyahooX.com> wrote in message
news:G5AUa.53414$6a3.9...@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> [Note: As I have never been one to gossip or talk behind someone's back,
> copies of this post have been sent to the people involved to give them a
> fair shot at responding. It is more than they gave me]
>
>
>
> The Internet has been a very useful tool for the Pagan community. It has
> allowed the local communities to stay up to date and in touch with what is
> going on and it has become the thread tying Pagans from around the world
> together allowing them to share the commonalities of and the differences
in
> their experiences. It has also taken that bane of the Paganism- the
Wiccan
> War (Witch War is no longer considered the proper term)- to new heights.
>
> I should have known better. I know what is going to happen before I even
get
> involved in there groups. However, a "friend" was kind enough to invite me
> join this particular e-mail list. Also, I felt the familiar, gentle
tugging
> telling me that there was a reason for me to be there. Any good Witch
knows
> that one simply does not ignore the quiet little messages that come one's
> way.
>
> So I went to Yahoo groups and I found the group called The Pagan Way. On
the
> home page I found the "we are very tolerant and we will not stand for
> bashing anyone else's beliefs" shtick that is as much a warning as a skull
> and crossbones. Danger: Intolerant codependent fascist Wiccan group ahead.
> Be nice, don't disagree with the dominant clique, and kiss ass or be
> lynched! Despite my swearing off such groups, I went ahead and subscribed
if
> for nothing more than wanting to find out why I was to be there.
>
> The first thing that happens is that I get a deluge of automatically
> generated e-mails from the Chancellor of this little cyber regime. He
calls
> himself- and I swear to the Universe that I am not kidding you- Rev. Sir
> Raymond E Nieman D. D., The Amber Adept. For the gods' sake, King James
> himself would have been embarrassed to make such an arrogant and
> ostentatious claim! Let me tell you, when I got to know this guy, I found
> out this didn't tell half the story.
>
> Well I joined this little Internet soirée and, realized that, once I
started
> posting, my time there would be short. So I lurked for awhile. The list
was
> exactly what I expected. While over 1500 people are subscribed to it,
there
> was a much smaller cadre of about 10 people who pretty much dominated the
> list. One has to wonder if the other 1490 simply forgot to unsub. At any
> rate, I silently watched the parade of whinings about life, error ridden
> treatises filled with Silver Ravenwolf level magick, and totally bizarre
> things like amber alerts and "help me name my feminist porno web site,"
> waiting for whatever it was I was there for.
>
> Finally, amidst the boring drone of the group, the post I was waiting for
> came. A young woman posted asking the group to provide some help for a
> "friend" (it's always a "friend", isn't it?). This "friend" was being
> assailed, she claimed, by an evil spirit. Apparently this spirit had been
> harassing her for some time- apparitions, moving objects and making
strange
> noises- and had even followed her when she moved. This, and some of the
> other information she provided as well as my Witch knowledge told me that
> she was totally wrong. This was no spirit. The "friend" was doing this
> herself.
>
> Several years ago, I was camping with a group of people. It was late into
> the evening (early into the morning, actually), much alcohol and other
> recreational substances had been consumed, almost everyone had drifted off
> to their tents for sex or to pass out, and we had entered the post party
> period where emotions were high and shields were down.
>
> I was talking to young woman whom I had just met that evening. She was
deep
> into the cathartic effect which occurs when one is in the presence of a
lot
> of magickal energy. She related to me how she had been assailed by an evil
> spirit. She assumed it was a woman who had died in the house she had lived
> in as a child. Like the "friend's" spirit, this one followed her around.
It
> moved objects, made strange noises at night, and even caused things like
car
> keys and jewelry "disappear." She had tried many banishing rituals but not
> one had worked. In fact, she felt things had gotten worse.
>
> She also told me other things about herself. She had a bad relationship
with
> her parents and just about every romantic relationship she had been in had
> turned to an angry, painful mess. She was having problems at work and was
so
> fed up with Paganism she had considered abandoning it all together. She
was
> at the end of her rope and did not know what to do.
>
> As I listened to her, the pieces of the puzzle began to arrange
themselves.
> It became clear to me that there was no "evil spirit." The source of the
> disturbances was the woman herself. This is not so farfetched when you
think
> about it. Many magickals have experienced a phenomenon which I call
> "accidental magick." Emotion is a strong source of energy and, when that
> energy becomes strong enough, it is going to go somewhere. When you couple
> that with a constant state of inner chaos, the result is exactly the kind
of
> disturbances this woman and the "friend" are experiencing.
>
> Being the blunt person I am, I told her, "There is no spirit. You are
doing
> this." Of course the woman did not take well to that thought. She objected
> and was almost offended at the idea. I let her go on about how that could
> not possibly be right and, when she ran out of steam, I asked her if the
> spirit had bothered her at all during that particular weekend while we
> camped. It hadn't. I asked her how she had felt that weekend. Her response
> was that she was more relaxed than she had been in quite awhile. I just
> looked at her for a few moments as the thought that I might be right
crossed
> her mind.
>
> She contacted me a few days later. It seems that her "spirit" had not
> bothered her for day or two. Then, she had a huge argument with her sister
> and, that very night, three plates were "mysteriously" flung from a shelf
> and broken on the kitchen floor while she slept.
>
> After a lot of work and time, this woman found her solution in learning to
> ground and center and in getting her life under control by staying away
from
> chaotic people and situations. The "spirit" eventually stopped bothering
> her.
>
> So this incident, my dealings with real spirits, and things I have picked
up
> from the experiences of my colleagues and mentors, made me pretty certain
> that the ""friend"" was the source of her own torment. I also learned that
> people who continue to assail spirits when there is no spirit involved not
> only make things worse not only by ignoring their own problems but by
> actually *evoking* spirits through their efforts to banish. Then, it
becomes
> a real party.
>
> The post about the ""friend"" and her "spirit" hit a chord inside me. This
> was why I was brought to the list. I did try to soften things a little. My
> first post was a response to one of those stupid survey things. Of course,
I
> gave funny instead of real answers and, again of course, since Pagans as a
> demographic are very humorless people, it was met with a cold response.
>
> All of the Wiccans were buying into the evil spirit theory and
contributing
> all the knowledge Llewellyn had to offer (yes, that was sarcasm) to the
> problem. If I was going to be the lone voice of reason, I would have to
take
> the blunt approach again. So I simply posted "It is not a spirit, your
> 'friend' is doing it herself." I seriously felt this person was heading
for
> big trouble and, since I was only going to get one shot, I took the
kamikaze
> approach.
>
> The gods' balls, you should have seen the reaction that caused! How DARE I
> make such a suggestion? How could I possibly know it was not a spirit (how
> could they possibly know it was)? I might as well have suggested that The
> Law of Three was a farce or that their mothers were all whores!
>
> Normally, at this point, I would have unleashed my full Talesinic power
and
> flamed those Wiccans into fine ash. However, this was a serious situation
> where someone really could get hurt. So I kept my flamethrower in the
closet
> and simply tried to reason with these people. They would not have it. They
> demanded my credentials, insulted me and called me stupid names, and even
> made not so subtle remarks about cutting me up with a variety of sharp
> weapons. All of this without a single moderator of this oh so peaceful and
> tolerant place objecting.
>
> However, I decided that this time it was going to be different. If they
were
> going to ride me out of town on a rail, they would not get any comfort
from
> me. I stayed my ground, for sure, but I did not resort to any kind of
> personal attack as they did to me.
>
> Right on cue, when the first wave of abusive frontal assaults did not
work,
> the second wave of behind the scenes whining to the mods began. "Get him
> off the list or I will unsubscribe." A friend of a friend of a friend told
> me he is really a Baptist bent on destroying Wicca." "He is a tool of the
> devil!"
>
> Well, this put Sir Rev Adept into a bad place. He was obligated to make
sure
> no miscreants disturbed his little kingdom and yet, he could not simply
oust
> me and look like the intolerant fascist that he really was. He had to
> fabricate a reason. Well, when you can't fight with facts, go with
emotion.
> I was accused of- get this- "having a rude tone."
>
> So the Reichfuhrer of The Pagan Way (gods, I gag every time I think of
that
> name) banned me. It was no great loss. The problem with these fascist
lists
> is that they become dreadfully boring. When things are so tightly
controlled
> and people are afraid to say what they think, it really does not promote
> interesting discussion. I had said my piece, those who were going to
listen
> to me did and those who weren't would just continue to wallow in the same
> ignorance they were in when I joined the list. I hoped the "friend" would
> not get hurt too badly by everyone else's ignorance and was happy to go on
> my way. But it did not end there.
>
> Apparently there are some people on The Pagan Way who disagreed with the
> decision to ban me because I refused to knuckle under to incorrect
> perceptions simply to appease a bunch of cyber bullies. Many of them-
> including a few moderators (the list must have like 50 moderators)- wrote
to
> me to tell me they were appalled by what happened. They said they knew I
was
> only trying to help and that they supported my right to think as I wanted.
> As an aside, I also found out that I had been moderated all along. The
posts
> I was banned for had actually been approved by a moderator *before* they
> appeared on the list! It was a setup.
>
> At any rate, my banning caused quite an offline stir (of course, none of
> this was allowed to be discussed publicly. Ah, the beauty of censorship).
> Members and mods alike were raising hell with over my banning. Things were
> not happy in the cyber Third Reich and something had to be done about it.
> Out came the favored weapons of the Wiccans- libel and slander.
>
> When they first banned me, the moderator who did so screwed up and only
> unsubbed me. I subscribed again before I was actually banned. Now, as you
> e-groupers know, it currently takes Yahoo two days to process any change
> requests. Thus, there was a time I was subbed to the list but my name did
> not appear on the member page. This was perfect for those who had silence
> me. "Look," they said, "He is hacking the list!" To further "prove" this,
> they banned the next few new people who tried to join their list and
claimed
> it was me hacking them. These idiots even went as far as doing Internet
> searches, finding some old spam dump addresses I never even look at, and
> sending "you are banned" notices to everyone they could find!
>
> Get this, Sir Rev Adept D.D. actually sends me an e-mail telling me that
The
> Pagan Way is *his* house and that, since I did not play his way, I was
being
> punished. That's right, he actually said, "punished." As further torment
for
> failing to kiss his arrogant ass, I was also banned from all of the other
> groups he owns. Oh, let me shed a bitter tear!
>
> Eons ago, when the Great Programmer wrote the code for the Universe, s/he
> included a subroutine for Wiccan Wars that has run unvaried since Sanders
> got pissed at Gardner. Someone comes along and refuses to follow the rest
of
> the sheep and suggests something that is not acceptable to the dominant
> cadre. Said cadre immediately attacks said non sheep. The (moderator,
elder,
> HP/S, teacher) of the group steps in and calls for their (banning,
> banishment, hanging, burning). To justify this heinous action, the same
old
> lies are brought out (s/he's a stalker, hacker, slut, sexual abuser). The
> saddest and most sickening part is the way people who see what is going on
> and know it is wrong refuse to speak up about it because they are
terrified
> of being the next person ousted from what ever social circle is involved.
>
> Is it any wonder that actual Witches prefer remaining solitary or to
> restrict themselves to family lines? Do we even need to consider why the
> "old guard" Pagans have turned their backs, walked away, and refuse to
even
> acknowledge what they built? Is more than one brain cell required to
figure
> out why Wicca/neo Paganism has become a joke?
>
> I understand the person who asked for help with the spirit and her
"friend"
> have consulted a medium and that this medium has "confirmed" it is an evil
> spirit. The spirit of her grandfather, in fact. At this point, one can
only
> hope that, after all of the chaos and pain the "friend" has ahead of her,
> she runs into someone who will be able to actually help her before she is
> injured beyond recovery.
>
> Had it not been for the fact that, this time, someone could be seriously
> hurt by a Wiccan War, I would not have wasted everyone's time writing
about
> it. After all, these petty Wiccan Wars happen all the time. So often, they
> are not even worth thinking about.
>
> Sadly, they have become The Pagan Way.
>
>
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/The_Pagan_Way/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Lush
Lush
"Brenda G. Kent" <wt...@victoria.tc.ca> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.56.03...@vtn1.victoria.tc.ca...
> On Sat, 26 Jul 2003, Parse Tree wrote:
>
> > "The Natural Philosopher" <a@b.c> wrote in message
> > news:3F22D85D.9060509@b.c...
> > > The Talesinator wrote:
> > >
> > > > [Note: As I have never been one to gossip or talk behind someone's
> > back,
> > > > copies of this post have been sent to the people involved to give
> > them a
> > > > fair shot at responding. It is more than they gave me]
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > What you have failed to understand is that paganism is a refuge for
> > out
> > > and out wannabees and losers, and that anyne who knows anythig about
> > > magick gives them all a wide berth, waitng for the odd one or two to
> > > grow out of it.
> > >
> > > I suggest you take a step backwards, turn round, and walka away and
> > > leave the petty egos, tribal squabbles and occult bullshit to those
> > who
> > > thrive on it.
> > >
> > > G'night all.
> >
> > I always find it funny that some people maintain all the religious
> > trappings and yet proceed to claim that they're not practicing a
> > religion.
> >
> *****a rose by any other name.....
> :)
> Bren.
>
> *****************************************************
> Religion is Love and Fellowship and not theological
> dogmas and creeds.
> When you have Love and Sympathy in your heart for
> your fellowmen, you have the highest type of religion
> no matter by what name you may call yourself. Rest
> assured that the emancipation of the world is through
> the Nameless God of Love, and in the Nameless
> Religion of Love.
> *****************************************************
Lush
Lush
"Brenda G. Kent" <wt...@victoria.tc.ca> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.56.03...@vtn1.victoria.tc.ca...
> Fantastic!
> Yes I have seen this happen more than once....heh.
> My anttenae start to go up everytime I hear someone say "a spirit is
> attacking me..or a friend" as this seems to be fairly common in newbies
> and drama queens/kings. It has the result of people crowding around ..wide
> eyed ...slack jawed...and watching your every motion when you proclaim
> this. Quite the attention getter. There are some people who really have
> this happenning ...or are creating it themselves with poltergeist
> energy...but not so many as would have us believe...I figure.
>
> Bren.
>
> --
kate
'boyfriend'?
Herbal Essence comes to mind. ;)
kate~
"Lush" <Count.Lushbat@nof*ckingspam.com> wrote in message
news:3f2364de$0$23587$5a62...@freenews.iinet.net.au...
kate
for sure. She's our resident expert on blending shit in an oil and vinegar
sort of way.
kate~
"Lush" <Count.Lushbat@nof*ckingspam.com> wrote in message
news:3f2364b6$0$23612$5a62...@freenews.iinet.net.au...
DeathWish
"kate" <tyle...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bg0o2q$jd2a7$1...@ID-140581.news.uni-berlin.de...
Tuesday Knight
And the udders. OH GOD the udders.
................ew
___
/uesday
/<night
Brenda G. Kent
> Me too. The licking of salt. The chewing of cud. Moos of ecstasy.
> And the udders. OH GOD the udders.
>
> ................ew
> ___
> /uesday
> /<night
>
LOL! :D
Bren.
Princess Fromage showers you with sparkling cow pats!
mOOOOooooooOOOOOOooooooOOOOOOOoooooOOOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooo!
Tuesday Knight
one. Your shit, I can take. Orgasming cows, not so much.
___
/uesday
/<night
hY
> Heheheh! At least you replaced that horrible visual with a slightly better
> one. Your shit, I can take. Orgasming cows, not so much.
Do female cows orgasm? Obviously the bulls do or their wouldn't be any
offspring.
The Talesinator
: "A rose by any other name' wouldn't combine Christianity with witchcraft,
: for sure.
I happen to know someone who does exactly that
--
Talesin- The Bad Boy of Witchcraft (tm)
The following statement is true
The above statement is false
http://home.kc.rr.com/pendragonsloft
Get your daily Dragon: http://www.pendragonsloft.blogspot.com/
© 2003 by Talesin- The Bad Boy of Witchcraft. All rights reserved
The Talesinator
"hY" <hybi...@shaw.ca> wrote in message news:3F244F63...@shaw.ca...
Bulls ejaculate with one thrust
What do you think?
Brenda G. Kent
>
> "kate" <tyle...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:bg0o86$jg65u$1...@ID-140581.news.uni-berlin.de...
> : "A rose by any other name' wouldn't combine Christianity with witchcraft,
> : for sure.
****Roses don't have religion.
>
> I happen to know someone who does exactly that
>
>
*****I know a witch who does that as well.
Lush
Lush
"DeathWish" <Nigh...@tds.net> wrote in message
news:nzWUa.23649$vx3.6...@kent.svc.tds.net...
Lush
Lush
"kate" <tyle...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bg0o2q$jd2a7$1...@ID-140581.news.uni-berlin.de...
t_naismith
>
> I guess that's why I am so hesitant to buy into the bashing of people like
> Brenda or Ballard.
Instead, you'd rather bash just about everyone besides those two
nutbags - so you can appear to be "not following a _herd_", eh? How's that
delusion working out for you, Tales-end?
> They, like me, are stating what they stand for and are
> willing to take the heat for it.
Wait ... are you implying that they actually state what they stand for
here? Bwahahahahaha.
> Not walking in lockstep with what everyone
> else believes or how they think is not a crime, despite what Pagans do to
> prevent it.
>
Which _lockstep_ stricture was that again, tales-end? It isn't related
distantly to the one where you proclaim some utterly baseless nonsense and
then whine when it gets taken apart, is it? Because that would be too close
to Blenda's schtick and not very original of you.
> --
> a Tales-end
Gavyn
news:bg30ji$k4jd1$1...@ID-140581.news.uni-berlin.de...
: "The Talesinator" wrote:
: >
: > I guess that's why I am so hesitant to buy into the bashing of people
like
: > Brenda or Ballard.
:
:
: Instead, you'd rather bash just about everyone besides those two
: nutbags - so you can appear to be "not following a _herd_", eh? How's
that
: delusion working out for you, Tales-end?
Well, the argument could also be made that you join those who *do* bash them
to *avoid* the appearance of not following the herd. One delusion is no
better than the other.
:
: > They, like me, are stating what they stand for and are
: > willing to take the heat for it.
:
:
: Wait ... are you implying that they actually state what they stand for
: here? Bwahahahahaha.
:
Do you have any evidence that that are not? I have an extraordinarily
difficult time conceiving of someone practicing withcraft, Christianity and
theosophy as well. However, who am I, you or anyone else to say that they
are not or cannot? Are we now the purveyors of all that is well and good
and within acceptable bounds of practice and belief? Where does
judgementalism like this come from?
:
: > Not walking in lockstep with what everyone
: > else believes or how they think is not a crime, despite what Pagans do
to
: > prevent it.
: >
:
: Which _lockstep_ stricture was that again, tales-end? It isn't
related
: distantly to the one where you proclaim some utterly baseless nonsense and
: then whine when it gets taken apart, is it? Because that would be too
close
: to Blenda's schtick and not very original of you.
:
: > --
: > a Tales-end
:
:
I'm not defending or supporting anyone here. But it seems that a lot of
judgement is taking place. The "my system is better than yours" fight is
tired, but it abounds on Usenet to be sure. I'm new, and it's hard to find
productive discussion occuring anywhere. Maybe that's because I refuse to
participate in ad hominem attacks and immediately put on ignore those who
start it (better to nip headaches in the bud than to let them grow).
~G~
Jani
"t_naismith" <t_nai...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bg30ji$k4jd1$1...@ID-140581.news.uni-berlin.de...
> >
> > I guess that's why I am so hesitant to buy into the bashing of people
like
> > Brenda or Ballard.
>
>
> Instead, you'd rather bash just about everyone besides those two
> nutbags - so you can appear to be "not following a _herd_", eh? How's
that
> delusion working out for you, Tales-end?
Interesting that he allies himself with the two people who consistently
attempt to misrepresent and malign witches and pagans on Usenet. Evidently
he thinks it's quite acceptable to perpetrate false claims of lineage,
cultural theft, associations of Wicca with pseudo-satanic abuse, etc, etc -
and that such people should not be "bashed" for doing so.
Jani
t_naismith
> "hY" wrote:
>
> > Blenda G. Kult wrote:
> >
> > > ****and I love and honour Jesus and yet I don't feel comfortable with
the
> > > outer circle of Christianity! It happens. If I was a Wiccan still...I
> > > would have no problem with saying so....just because others don't do
> > > things you approve of..does not mean you should be worried about how
you
> > > will be seen by others. I always feel that this is a cowardly thing.
Let
> > > them have their prejudices and assumptions...they soon enough
learn..if
> > > they have two brain cells to rub together.
> >
> > What are you Brenda? What sort of magik do you study?
>
> ***I'm a woman....
... a known habitual liar and ...
> ***witch
Unsupported assertion ... insufficient evidence of validity.
>***and christian
... only in the vaguest sense; according to your own posts.
>***and theosophist.
You forgot Quaker, pseudo-shaman and cult-ural thief and promoter of
_all-is-one one-wayism_, Blenda. Who knows what load of nonsense you'll
claim next week!
>***What sort of "majik" do I study?
No discernably working sort at all. You are without that knack.
>***I study and practise a lot of different kinds why?
>
What kinds do you study? What types to do claim to practice?
> > > *****************************************************
> > > Religion is Love and Fellowship and not theological
> > > dogmas and creeds.
> > > When you have Love and Sympathy in your heart for
> > > your fellowmen, you have the highest type of religion
> > > no matter by what name you may call yourself. Rest
> > > assured that the emancipation of the world is through
> > > the Nameless God of Love, and in the Nameless
> > > Religion of Love.
> >
> > ick.. this has beauty as well as war seeping through its words.
> >
> **** you see war in it? I don't...you love and you can set a soul
> free...perhaps a warrior of a different kind.
>
Your thin veneer of _love and light_ does little to obscure the
falsehood of what you preach tries to hide, Blenda. Even hY sees right
through it.
TN
> Blen.one.wayist
t_naismith
> "t_naismith" wrote:
>
> > "The Talesinator" wrote:
> > >
> > > I guess that's why I am so hesitant to buy into the bashing of people
> like
> > > Brenda or Ballard.
> >
> >
> > Instead, you'd rather bash just about everyone besides those two
> > nutbags - so you can appear to be "not following a _herd_", eh? How's
> that
> > delusion working out for you, Tales-end?
>
> Interesting that he allies himself with the two people who consistently
> attempt to misrepresent and malign witches and pagans on Usenet. Evidently
> he thinks it's quite acceptable to perpetrate false claims of lineage,
> cultural theft, associations of Wicca with pseudo-satanic abuse, etc,
etc -
> and that such people should not be "bashed" for doing so.
>
> Jani
>
of_beliefs_, he can. It is a very telling thing for Tales-end to do and a
sort of 'kiss of death' for those he supports in that way.
Trev
Jani
> "t_naismith" <t_nai...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:bg30ji$k4jd1$1...@ID-140581.news.uni-berlin.de...
> : "The Talesinator" wrote:
> : >
> : > I guess that's why I am so hesitant to buy into the bashing of people
> like
> : > Brenda or Ballard.
> :
> :
> : Instead, you'd rather bash just about everyone besides those two
> : nutbags - so you can appear to be "not following a _herd_", eh? How's
> that
> : delusion working out for you, Tales-end?
> :
>
> Well, the argument could also be made that you join those who *do* bash
them
> to *avoid* the appearance of not following the herd. One delusion is no
> better than the other.
It could, but in this instance it would be wrong.
>
> :
> : > They, like me, are stating what they stand for and are
> : > willing to take the heat for it.
> :
> :
> : Wait ... are you implying that they actually state what they stand
for
> : here? Bwahahahahaha.
> :
>
> Do you have any evidence that that are not? I have an extraordinarily
> difficult time conceiving of someone practicing withcraft, Christianity
and
> theosophy as well. However, who am I, you or anyone else to say that they
> are not or cannot? Are we now the purveyors of all that is well and good
> and within acceptable bounds of practice and belief? Where does
> judgementalism like this come from?
I could not care less which path slitch is pretending to follow this week,
since she lies as easily as breathing. I do care when her false claims and
pretensions insult those who *do* have a genuine commitment to those paths,
and when she tries to fool newcomers into thinking that she is in any way
representative of them. As for RB, he posts inaccuracies and misconceptions
about wicca and paganism based on his subjective experience of a small
neighbourhood, his christian preconceptions, and his highly selective
reading, and therefore he is constantly corrected on those inaccuracies by
various people who have rather more relevant experience and knowledge.
>
> :
> : > Not walking in lockstep with what everyone
> : > else believes or how they think is not a crime, despite what Pagans do
> to
> : > prevent it.
> : >
> :
> : Which _lockstep_ stricture was that again, tales-end? It isn't
> related
> : distantly to the one where you proclaim some utterly baseless nonsense
and
> : then whine when it gets taken apart, is it? Because that would be too
> close
> : to Blenda's schtick and not very original of you.
> :
> : > --
> : > a Tales-end
> :
> :
>
> I'm not defending or supporting anyone here. But it seems that a lot of
> judgement is taking place.
Of course there is. You yourself are making a judgment, that no-one should
make judgments.
The "my system is better than yours" fight is
> tired, but it abounds on Usenet to be sure. I'm new, and it's hard to
find
> productive discussion occuring anywhere. Maybe that's because I refuse to
> participate in ad hominem attacks and immediately put on ignore those who
> start it (better to nip headaches in the bud than to let them grow).
Maybe you would be happier on the moderated groups, then. The posters here
are opinionated individuals, and are not going to temper the tone of their
posts because you happen to think that they should not make judgments, or
that they should refrain from attacking those they find objectionable.
Jani
kate
Gavyn, I can really only speak for myself.
The problem with Brenda is mostly her lying, changing stories, trying to
force her will on all of us, her pretenses, her condescension and her
backpeddling.
It's all in google and not only in this group.
Like you say, better to nip headaches in the bud than to let them grow.
She's more than just a headache, she's a sham pagan.
You needn't take my word for it, you can prove it to yourself by
researching.
She cares for no one and nothing but herself underneath the phoney
expressions of 'love and light', and espouses a different view of her
beliefs Very often.
Alright, I've had my say.
Good luck to you if you decide to enter into any type of 'relationship' with
her or her supporters.
In good faith,
kate~
BTW, welcome to the group, I haven't met you before ;)
>
>
Jani
Oh, certainly it's telling. I have no problem with him changing his
allegiances every five minutes, it's part of his shit-stirring tactics. But
specifically supporting the people who try and undermine craft and paganism
from an outsiders' perspective is very .... appropriate, for him.
Jani
Gavyn
news:Ws8Va.1553$B65.17...@news-text.cableinet.net...
:
: "t_naismith" <t_nai...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
:
Whoa, I'm not "allying" myself with anyone here. I'm just making a few
observations. This is not a sport in which one has to choose a team.
You are correct that I was making a judgement about people making
judgements. You have a point there, I have to admit that. Is one worse
than the other? I don't know.
As I said, I'm new. I give people the benefit of the doubt until they show
me otherwise. Who's to say anyone is correct? So what if someone's belief
system changes from one day to the next? Isn't that part of a healthy and
progressive journey? Maybe, maybe not. I'm just a regular guy on that
journey myself, and I don't pretend to have any answers. I don't think
anyone really does.
But, "allying"? No way, I have neither the time nor the inclination to get
into petty things like that. If making observations and asking questions
makes me someone who is "allying," well then I guess I plead no contest.
~G~
Gavyn
:
: "t_naismith" <t_nai...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
:
:
Woops, I think I responded to your last post thinking it was to me when it
was to Taliesen. My apologies if that was the case. It's early, and I
haven't had my pot of coffee yet!
Absence of morning caffeine is a justifiable excuse yes?
~G~
Tuesday Knight
___
/uesday
/<night
Tuesday Knight
___
/uesday
/<night
Tuesday Knight
Im starting to feel really sorry for cows. I need time to reevaluate this
emotion.
___
/uesday
/<night
On 7/28/03 5:43 AM, hY at hybi...@shaw.ca wrote:
> The Talesinator wrote:
>> "hY" <hybi...@shaw.ca> wrote in message news:3F244F63...@shaw.ca...
>> : Tuesday Knight wrote:
>> : > Heheheh! At least you replaced that horrible visual with a slightly
>> better
>> : > one. Your shit, I can take. Orgasming cows, not so much.
>> :
>> : Do female cows orgasm? Obviously the bulls do or their wouldn't be any
>> : offspring.
>> :
>>
>> Bulls ejaculate with one thrust
>> What do you think?
>
> Bulls have had a lot of anticipation and instinct going for them.
>
> Who knows, maybe the cows do enjoy this violent thrust and warm gooey
> feeling left behind.
>
Parse Tree
news:K61Va.42014$7O4.8...@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
>
> "kate" <tyle...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:bg0o86$jg65u$1...@ID-140581.news.uni-berlin.de...
> : "A rose by any other name' wouldn't combine Christianity with
witchcraft,
> : for sure.
>
> I happen to know someone who does exactly that
Wait, I didn't see this before. What's wrong with combining
Christianity with witchcraft?
Jani
> "Jani" <ja...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:Ws8Va.1553$B65.17...@news-text.cableinet.net...
> :
> : "t_naismith" <t_nai...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> : news:bg30ji$k4jd1$1...@ID-140581.news.uni-berlin.de...
> : > "The Talesinator" wrote:
> : > >
> : > > I guess that's why I am so hesitant to buy into the bashing of
people
> : like
> : > > Brenda or Ballard.
> : >
> : >
> : > Instead, you'd rather bash just about everyone besides those two
> : > nutbags - so you can appear to be "not following a _herd_", eh? How's
> : that
> : > delusion working out for you, Tales-end?
> :
> : Interesting that he allies himself with the two people who consistently
> : attempt to misrepresent and malign witches and pagans on Usenet.
Evidently
> : he thinks it's quite acceptable to perpetrate false claims of lineage,
> : cultural theft, associations of Wicca with pseudo-satanic abuse, etc,
> etc -
> : and that such people should not be "bashed" for doing so.
> :
> : Jani
> :
> :
>
> Whoa, I'm not "allying" myself with anyone here. I'm just making a few
> observations. This is not a sport in which one has to choose a team.
If you look at the text above, I was referring to Tales, not to you. Watch
out for the snips ;)
> You are correct that I was making a judgement about people making
> judgements. You have a point there, I have to admit that. Is one worse
> than the other? I don't know.
I would say that a judgment ought to be based on evidence, and therefore it
would be reasonable to criticise someone who made judgments without any. You
said, in effect, that it was wrong to make any judgments at all, and I don't
agree with that.
> As I said, I'm new. I give people the benefit of the doubt until they
show
> me otherwise. Who's to say anyone is correct? So what if someone's
belief
> system changes from one day to the next? Isn't that part of a healthy and
> progressive journey?
Well, put it this way. Can you learn enough of the history, theory and
practice of a belief system in a single day to embrace it, practise it,
reject it, and then go on to the next? Of course not, the most you could do
would be to scratch the surface. You can't "be" jewish one day, and "be"
muslim the next, and "be" trad by the weekend, although you could certainly
spend the week finding out some superficial elements about all of them.
> But, "allying"? No way, I have neither the time nor the inclination to
get
> into petty things like that. If making observations and asking questions
> makes me someone who is "allying," well then I guess I plead no contest.
See above :)
Jani
Jani
> Woops, I think I responded to your last post thinking it was to me when it
> was to Taliesen.
You did, and I replied to it there :)
My apologies if that was the case. It's early, and I
> haven't had my pot of coffee yet!
>
> Absence of morning caffeine is a justifiable excuse yes?
Absolutely not :) It's late afternoon here, would you care for a glass of
wine?
Jani
j11
Absence of caffeine is a justifiable excuse for almost anything!
j11
Jani
"j11" <j4hd...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:BB4AC1B3.A872%j4hd...@earthlink.net...
You want some wine, too? :)
Jani
j11
Don't mind if I do...goes well with coffee.
Thank you, Jani. :)
j11
Brenda G. Kent
***apparantly just like the many people of one tradition of Christianity
who put down others trad as "not correct" these "pagans" follow along
thinking that all Christians do think alike..or should..and that there is
only one kind of Christianity. Now if every Christian out there was a
literalist they would all not be wearing mixed cloths...forsaking
shellfish and swearing off "four legged fowl" (whatever that is). There
are many many kinds of Christians...from the mystics to the Pentacostals
and they have many differences between them all and different interps on
the Bible...some include or exclude Catholic texts, Nag Hammadi etc. The
"we are the only true Christians" aspect of some Christians share a lot in
common with some pagans.
Tuesday Knight
___
/uesday
/<night
Gavyn
:
*SNIP*
:
: Well, put it this way. Can you learn enough of the history, theory and
: practice of a belief system in a single day to embrace it, practise it,
: reject it, and then go on to the next? Of course not, the most you could
do
: would be to scratch the surface. You can't "be" jewish one day, and "be"
: muslim the next, and "be" trad by the weekend, although you could
certainly
: spend the week finding out some superficial elements about all of them.
*SNIP*
Okay, now I see where you're coming from. I'm in total agreement with you.
To a point anyway.
Sometimes, for someone to find a path that is truly right for them, they do
simply scratch the surface of many systems until they find something that
"fits" them or develope their own belief system while borrowing a bit from
others. Scratching the surface is often enough to know that going deeper
would be useless because the surface is already in contention with one's
belief system. In *that* sense, scratching the surface is perfectly fine.
However, were someone to read a book about, say, Thelema, and then claim to
be a well-studied and experienced Thelemite, *that* would be complete bogus.
I think we're actually on the same page here, just took a bit of hashing to
figure that out is all.
My philosophy is live and let live, and discuss as much as you can along the
way so that we can all learn from one another and take what we will from the
discourse. For example, I was under the impression that Brenda was being
attacked simply because she professes to be a practicing "Christian
theosophical witch." While that phrase confuses the bejubbers out of me, to
each her/his own. However, if she is indeed saying this week that's what
she is, and next week she professes to be well-studied and experienced in
some other system, then of course something is rotten.
I have my own belief system. I guess you could call me a Witch if you
wished, though I personally tend to shy away from labels. They're *so*
constricting and the person begins to be defined by the label rather than
the other way around (the person defining the label and changing it as
her/his system changes over time). I simply say I'm Pagan and leave it at
that. I do have a specific reason for not being Wiccan (aside from the fact
that I just don't agree with everything Wiccans believe) is that organized
religion of any kind, in my most humble opinion, is a plague on the butt of
humanity. I'm not saying Wiccans are bad people at all. I'm saying
organizing a religion is a bad thing. Just my opinion.
~G~
Brenda G. Kent
> Im sure I dont know. Ask Brenduh. She knows everything. :-D
> ___
> /uesday
> /<night
**Well not quite everything..but thanks.
I suppose they can...I mean I have heard from friends who have grown up on
farms that female cows do masturbate by rubbing against things...so????
Oh..and the name is Bren or Brenda.
Brenda G. Kent
***oh dear! Hey Gavyn..I have never said to be well-studied or
well-experienced in anything..and I don't change every week. I am a
christian, theosophist and witch true....I also am curious about many
other faiths and practises but no I do not state adeptship in any of
those. Jani has her own personal problem with me and has been lying about
me for over two years now. I have never put down any other faith or
culture ..yet she believes I have out of her own misunderstanding and does
not give up this notion so quickly..much to her own detriment. Be assured
I don't read her posts unless they get attached onto another persons
post..same with Trev and Kate..both who also have a problem with me
because they don't understand my mindset and hate the fact that I think
outside the box. Apart from all this..your quess is as good as mine. The
obsession with me is what I find curious at times.
> I have my own belief system. I guess you could call me a Witch if you
> wished, though I personally tend to shy away from labels. They're *so*
> constricting and the person begins to be defined by the label rather than
> the other way around (the person defining the label and changing it as
> her/his system changes over time). I simply say I'm Pagan and leave it at
> that. I do have a specific reason for not being Wiccan (aside from the fact
> that I just don't agree with everything Wiccans believe) is that organized
> religion of any kind, in my most humble opinion, is a plague on the butt of
> humanity. I'm not saying Wiccans are bad people at all. I'm saying
> organizing a religion is a bad thing. Just my opinion.
>
*****I at times think about dispensing with the labels as I too find them
constricting but then I also find that it causes people to perhaps think
outside the box as well when they see a witch who is also a
christian....it makes them stop and think....whether they feel I am
crazy...or have something...it at least makes them stop and think.
> ~G~
***Blessings and nice to get to know you,
Bren.
Ps. If you understand Theosophy...I think one would understand how I can
both be a witch and christian.
:)
Gavyn
news:Pine.GSO.4.56.03...@vtn1.victoria.tc.ca...
:
: >
: > "Jani" <ja...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
: > news:VxbVa.1791$lz6.18...@news-text.cableinet.net...
:
: ***oh dear! Hey Gavyn..I have never said to be well-studied or
: well-experienced in anything..and I don't change every week. I am a
: christian, theosophist and witch true....I also am curious about many
: other faiths and practises but no I do not state adeptship in any of
: those. Jani has her own personal problem with me and has been lying about
: me for over two years now. I have never put down any other faith or
: culture ..yet she believes I have out of her own misunderstanding and does
: not give up this notion so quickly..much to her own detriment. Be assured
: I don't read her posts unless they get attached onto another persons
: post..same with Trev and Kate..both who also have a problem with me
: because they don't understand my mindset and hate the fact that I think
: outside the box. Apart from all this..your quess is as good as mine. The
: obsession with me is what I find curious at times.
Hi Brenda,
Well, as I said to Jani and will say to anyone else, I give everyone
(including you) the benefit of the doubt unless and/or until proven that I
should do otherwise. As to the personal issues between you and Jani, or
between anyone here for that matter, I really want no part of that. It's
none of my business and in my opinion is really misplaced in terms of being
posted on a newsgroup. I have been online since there was a line to be on,
and I believe in the traditional netiquette method of "taking it to private"
(private e-mails or chat) when it comes to personal disagreements. Ad
hominem attacks serve no productive purpose in a public arena and people get
dragged into it who shouldn't be in it in the first place.
I would be interested in hearing how you blend those three belief systems
into a practical belief system for yourself though. I must admit that I am
a bit (okay, more than just a bit) confused on that one. I'm not interested
in the since that I want to participate actively in pursuing such a system
for myself (Christianity has no place in my life, that's for certain), but
simply for the purposes of discussion. I always enjoy hearing about other
people's belief systems and do occassionally learn a thing or two! So,
shoot .... my curiosity is peaking on this one.
I will tell you what I've made clear already though .... I won't get
involved in all this other mess I see going on. I refuse to "pick sides" or
even get involved in all of it to begin with. Just not worth it and really
none of my business.
~G~
hY
> Do you have any evidence that that are not? I have an extraordinarily
> difficult time conceiving of someone practicing withcraft, Christianity and
> theosophy as well. However, who am I, you or anyone else to say that they
> are not or cannot? Are we now the purveyors of all that is well and good
> and within acceptable bounds of practice and belief? Where does
> judgementalism like this come from?
Nice post, Gavyn.
I used to practice a mixed bag of religions, and I think that my
system did me perfectly fine for who I was at that time. And I am sure
that many over in alt.magick practice some sort of mix of Christianity
and Withcraft (they just use different terminologies).
I see nothing wrong with Brenda working these different systems. We
have to fulfill ourselves with what we need and with what works for us.
hY
>
> You forgot Quaker, pseudo-shaman and cult-ural thief and promoter of
> _all-is-one one-wayism_, Blenda. Who knows what load of nonsense you'll
> claim next week!
She is finding herself.
She may be going about it in a much different way then you found your
proper system, but maybe you got lucky and found what was right for
you right away.
Or, perhaps she is meant to take the long broad approach, and not dive
too deeply into any certain form, at least not for now.
hY
> Gavyn, I can really only speak for myself.
> The problem with Brenda is mostly her lying, changing stories, trying to
> force her will on all of us, her pretenses, her condescension and her
> backpeddling.
While your assessment is honest in its own right, you have to remember
that it is very difficult for some people to be forced into a rigid
straight path.
She may seem to be changing stories to someone who has a rigid thought
pattern and belief system. But her system is very honest to those that
are not rigid in belief patterns.
i.e., she doesn't have a rigid bound system that fits your definition.
Yet, it is obviously a system in that she can hold on to it, and it
doesn't fall apart when challenged.
> She cares for no one and nothing but herself underneath the phoney
> expressions of 'love and light', and espouses a different view of her
> beliefs Very often.
Maybe her expressions are not phony to her, and only seem phony to
people that don't think the way she does?
Could she really continue going on the way she is, with all of you
fighting against her, if this wasn't an intrinsic and genuine part of her?
t_naismith
> "Gavyn" wrote:
> > "t_naismith" wrote:
> >
> > : "The Talesinator" wrote:
> > : >
> > : > I guess that's why I am so hesitant to buy into the bashing of
people
> > like
> > : > Brenda or Ballard.
> > :
> > :
> > : Instead, you'd rather bash just about everyone besides those two
> > : nutbags - so you can appear to be "not following a _herd_", eh? How's
> > that
> > : delusion working out for you, Tales-end?
> > :
> >
> > Well, the argument could also be made that you join those who *do* bash
> them
> > to *avoid* the appearance of not following the herd. One delusion is no
> > better than the other.
>
> It could, but in this instance it would be wrong.
>
why the posted views of these two are opposed by some, (and this context can
be seen in archived posts of theirs), I would leave the reasons for doing so
up to his own discernment.
> > :
> > : > They, like me, are stating what they stand for and are
> > : > willing to take the heat for it.
> > :
> > :
> > : Wait ... are you implying that they actually state what they stand
> for
> > : here? Bwahahahahaha.
> > :
> >
> > Do you have any evidence that that are not?
Yes. Their posts are archived. Should you be sufficiently curious,
read of their views in their own words, in context.
> > I have an extraordinarily
> > difficult time conceiving of someone practicing withcraft, Christianity
> and
> > theosophy as well. However, who am I, you or anyone else to say that
they
> > are not or cannot?
Certainly their pretenses to practicing whatever they want or calling
themselves whatever they wish has little direct bearing on you or I. The
relevant point here is that merely claiming to do these disparate things
does not make Brenda, (or anyone), a practitioner of them. In fact, when
her claims were chalenged, they collasped into falsehoods promulgated by
Brenda's own posts.
> > Are we now the purveyors of all that is well and good
> > and within acceptable bounds of practice and belief? Where does
> > judgementalism like this come from?
>
Actual practitioners who honor a path may feel a certain duty to refute
dishonorable false claims by others. This is the case with Brenda.
> I could not care less which path slitch is pretending to follow this week,
> since she lies as easily as breathing. I do care when her false claims and
> pretensions insult those who *do* have a genuine commitment to those
paths,
> and when she tries to fool newcomers into thinking that she is in any way
> representative of them. As for RB, he posts inaccuracies and
misconceptions
> about wicca and paganism based on his subjective experience of a small
> neighbourhood, his christian preconceptions, and his highly selective
> reading, and therefore he is constantly corrected on those inaccuracies by
> various people who have rather more relevant experience and knowledge.
> >
> > :
> > : > Not walking in lockstep with what everyone
> > : > else believes or how they think is not a crime, despite what Pagans
do
> > to
> > : > prevent it.
> > : >
> > :
> > : Which _lockstep_ stricture was that again, tales-end? It isn't
> > related
> > : distantly to the one where you proclaim some utterly baseless nonsense
> and
> > : then whine when it gets taken apart, is it? Because that would be too
> > close
> > : to Blenda's schtick and not very original of you.
> > :
> >
> > I'm not defending or supporting anyone here. But it seems that a lot of
> > judgement is taking place.
>
> Of course there is. You yourself are making a judgment, that no-one should
> make judgments.
>
I will adjudge that Gavyn will find it difficult to move through life
without making judgements. ;)
> The "my system is better than yours" fight is
> > tired, but it abounds on Usenet to be sure. I'm new, and it's hard to
> find
> > productive discussion occuring anywhere. Maybe that's because I refuse
to
> > participate in ad hominem attacks and immediately put on ignore those
who
> > start it (better to nip headaches in the bud than to let them grow).
>
> Maybe you would be happier on the moderated groups, then. The posters here
> are opinionated individuals, and are not going to temper the tone of their
> posts because you happen to think that they should not make judgments, or
> that they should refrain from attacking those they find objectionable.
>
This is always a problem when new posters arrive; they lack the context
of on-going debates if they haven't lurked or looked at the archived posts
too deeply.
Should they choose to become involved in a pre-existing discussion, it is
then their responsibility to gather sufficient context on their own to allow
relevant input.
> Jani
>
Trevor (context is a key) N.
t_naismith
> allegiances every five minutes, it's part of his shit-stirring tactics.
But
> specifically supporting the people who try and undermine craft and
paganism
> from an outsiders' perspective is very .... appropriate, for him.
>
Hmm ... then you see this as going beyond his usual "superficial support
for those opposed to those he opposes" tactic? The undermining of paganism
and those of the crafts from without has been tried before. Likely, it will
continue, however, it is less effective than undermining from within would
be. This is why there will always be solitaries.
Trev
> Jani
>
>
Brenda G. Kent
***yes understood ...which is why I don't bother reading people's posts
when all they wish to do is put down. I have a few times taken it to
email...and got either "I don't want to talk to you" or "how dare you
email me privately" despite the newsreader asking me if I wish to respond
to them privately or on the group. WE are in total agreement as to the
netiquette.
>
> I would be interested in hearing how you blend those three belief systems
> into a practical belief system for yourself though. I must admit that I am
> a bit (okay, more than just a bit) confused on that one. I'm not interested
> in the since that I want to participate actively in pursuing such a system
> for myself (Christianity has no place in my life, that's for certain), but
> simply for the purposes of discussion. I always enjoy hearing about other
> people's belief systems and do occassionally learn a thing or two! So,
> shoot .... my curiosity is peaking on this one.
>
*** to my own interp of Jesus and what I "think" could be his
teachings...He was very much a mystic...into the inner teachings of
Judaism...plus perhaps Hindu mysticism etc. I see him as a person who
espoused magick (loaves and fishes...walking on water...healing...etc.)who
came to teach people about an inner way of Judaism which the majority had
ceased participating in (all outer circles having an easier to understand
grab at the populace). I see him as essentially what we would consider a
witch...albeit an extremely adept one and perhaps now...somewhat of a (for
want of a better term)boddhisattva...giving up his final disolution of
self to help others to enlighten. I believe that the Bible was written
without including many passages (Nag Hammadi etc.) and that the two kinds
of early Christianity (inner and outer) were forced by politicians to
merge into one (namely the outer translation...interp). Jesus was
supposedly gifted with presents from three magi (magicians) who saw his
coming as a wonderful sign of enlightenment to the world. I cannot see
Jesus himself ...wanting magi or any other person who uses the gifts God
(or the ONE) gave them....to be killed. I believe this was first off Old
Testament outer circle Judaism talking through translations of King James
etc. and then obviously mistranslation and misunderstandings throughout
the New testament. My form of Christianity....is just that...my own
belief....like so many other traditions out there..it is mine and I don't
ask that anyone else follow it..however I will speak up when someone deems
to speak for me on Christianity by saying "all Christians do this..."
Just basic respect for each others path to spirit is what I am talking
about.
> I will tell you what I've made clear already though .... I won't get
> involved in all this other mess I see going on. I refuse to "pick sides" or
> even get involved in all of it to begin with. Just not worth it and really
> none of my business.
>
****very nice to see and blessings
> ~G~
>
Bren.
Brenda G. Kent
***Bless you both!
>
>
Bren
--
t_naismith
> "The Talesinator" wrote:
> > "kate" wrote:
> >
> > : "A rose by any other name' wouldn't combine Christianity with
> witchcraft,
> > : for sure.
> >
> > I happen to know someone who does exactly that
>
> Wait, I didn't see this before. What's wrong with combining
> Christianity with witchcraft?
>
HTH-
TN
Brenda G. Kent
> t_naismith wrote:
>
> >
> > You forgot Quaker, pseudo-shaman and cult-ural thief and promoter of
> > _all-is-one one-wayism_, Blenda. Who knows what load of nonsense you'll
> > claim next week!
>
>
> She is finding herself.
***actually if people read my responses they will see that I talk about my
ancestors who some of which are Quakers ...shamanism? since I am talking
about Core Shamanics that has nothing to do with cultural theft if you
understand Core Shamanics...so I do hope you learn. I have no one-way_ism
and never had. I am always talking about each persons right to their won
belief system and respect going to each person.
Finding myself? hmmmmm goodness..I hope eventually to lose mySELF! :D
>
> She may be going about it in a much different way then you found your
> proper system, but maybe you got lucky and found what was right for
> you right away.
>
> Or, perhaps she is meant to take the long broad approach, and not dive
> too deeply into any certain form, at least not for now.
>
>
***or perhaps I am just doing something in a different way that you cannot
understand? I personally see the source as the soil and we all have our
roots in it..no matter what kind of flower we are. This is me..I don't ask
that others think as me...but only to allow us all to form our own
beliefs.
Bren
Brenda G. Kent
> kate wrote:
>
> > Gavyn, I can really only speak for myself.
> > The problem with Brenda is mostly her lying, changing stories, trying to
> > force her will on all of us, her pretenses, her condescension and her
> > backpeddling.
>
***there is no lying...there is no changing stories..and there is no
force..infact it is up to you to decide to read my posts. My pretenses?
..my condescension? what would you call putting someone down all the time?
is this any better? backpeddling? if trying to explain something so that
others will understand it better is seen as backpeddling then so be it.
> While your assessment is honest in its own right, you have to remember
> that it is very difficult for some people to be forced into a rigid
> straight path.
>
***every one finds God...or whatever in their own way.
> She may seem to be changing stories to someone who has a rigid thought
> pattern and belief system. But her system is very honest to those that
> are not rigid in belief patterns.
>
****it also comes down to approaching me from a certain standpoint so that
you don't even TRY to listen or understand what I have to say...just
having fun bonding with others in fitting oneself into the like her..don't
like her camps.
> i.e., she doesn't have a rigid bound system that fits your definition.
> Yet, it is obviously a system in that she can hold on to it, and it
> doesn't fall apart when challenged.
>
***thankyou!
> > She cares for no one and nothing but herself underneath the phoney
> > expressions of 'love and light', and espouses a different view of her
> > beliefs Very often.
>
****No I love everyone. You can understand it....I understand that...but I
do. If it is phoney to you..then so be it. You give a flower to someone
with a closed fist and the flower falls to the ground..however the intent
is still there.
> Maybe her expressions are not phony to her, and only seem phony to
> people that don't think the way she does?
>
> Could she really continue going on the way she is, with all of you
> fighting against her, if this wasn't an intrinsic and genuine part of her?
>
****and sadly I see so little of this now...that it is totally in their
world...I am going on..loving people and getting to know them and
listening to others ideas and such. I have never been one to do what the
crowd does as I am not fond of that mentality...so I do what everyone can
do....skip those posts.
Bren.
t_naismith
> > witchcraft,
> > > : for sure.
> > >
> > > I happen to know someone who does exactly that
> >
>
> > Wait, I didn't see this before. What's wrong with combining
> > Christianity with witchcraft?
> >
>
> ***apparantly just like the many people of one tradition of Christianity
> who put down others trad as "not correct" these "pagans" follow along
> thinking that all Christians do think alike..or should..and that there is
> only one kind of Christianity.
_Apparently_ you are incorrect, Blenda. Not only do I, for one,
recognise that there are any number of christian sects abounding, what they
may believe has no relevance for me - unless they try to inflict it upon
others or myself. Do what you like in the dankness of your mind but, when
you spew it out in public, expect to be hosed-down with the cold water of
refutation. Speaking of which, aren't you the same Brenda who continually
espouses the *cack* "unity of all religions" and "seeing the commonalities
in them, rather than the differences"? Doesn't that apply to your xtian
sects or was that another Brenda who promulgates that nonsense?
> ***Now if every Christian out there was a
> literalist they would all not be wearing mixed cloths...forsaking
> shellfish and swearing off "four legged fowl" (whatever that is). There
> are many many kinds of Christians...from the mystics to the Pentacostals
> and they have many differences between them all and different interps on
> the Bible...some include or exclude Catholic texts, Nag Hammadi etc.
Again, pedal the christian sect stuff to your christnet groups if you
wish to debate angels break dancing on pins, Brenda.
> *** The
> "we are the only true Christians" aspect of some Christians share a lot in
> common with some pagans.
>
Who said they were the "one and only true pagans", Blenda? Was it you
and your false claims?
TN (eye of the Falcon)
t_naismith
> "Jani" wrote:
> :
> *SNIP*
> :
> : Well, put it this way. Can you learn enough of the history, theory and
> : practice of a belief system in a single day to embrace it, practise it,
> : reject it, and then go on to the next? Of course not, the most you could
> do
> : would be to scratch the surface. You can't "be" jewish one day, and "be"
> : muslim the next, and "be" trad by the weekend, although you could
> certainly
> : spend the week finding out some superficial elements about all of them.
> :
> *SNIP*
>
> Okay, now I see where you're coming from. I'm in total agreement with
you.
> To a point anyway.
>
> Sometimes, for someone to find a path that is truly right for them, they
do
> simply scratch the surface of many systems until they find something that
> "fits" them or develope their own belief system while borrowing a bit from
> others. Scratching the surface is often enough to know that going deeper
> would be useless because the surface is already in contention with one's
> belief system. In *that* sense, scratching the surface is perfectly fine.
>
"Scratching the surface" is insufficient to claim practitioner or
_teaching_ abilities, as Brenda has done. By her own prior posts, her
"seeking" is superficial and remains so until she latches onto another
superficial _understanding_.
> However, were someone to read a book about, say, Thelema, and then claim
to
> be a well-studied and experienced Thelemite, *that* would be complete
bogus.
>
This is, indeed, what Brenda and Ballard do, (as gleaned from their own
posts). The only "misunderstandings" in this regard have been theirs.
> I think we're actually on the same page here, just took a bit of hashing
to
> figure that out is all.
>
That's cool, Gavyn.
> My philosophy is live and let live, and discuss as much as you can along
the
> way so that we can all learn from one another and take what we will from
the
> discourse. For example, I was under the impression that Brenda was being
> attacked simply because she professes to be a practicing "Christian
> theosophical witch." While that phrase confuses the bejubbers out of me,
to
> each her/his own. However, if she is indeed saying this week that's what
> she is, and next week she professes to be well-studied and experienced in
> some other system, then of course something is rotten.
>
There is a not-so-fine line between rebutting a poster's viewpoints and
the poster themselves. Sometimes that line is blurred. Sometimes the
former has been shown not to penetrate the self-imposed delusions of the
poster and the latter is attempted.
> I have my own belief system. I guess you could call me a Witch if you
> wished, though I personally tend to shy away from labels. They're *so*
> constricting and the person begins to be defined by the label rather than
> the other way around (the person defining the label and changing it as
> her/his system changes over time). I simply say I'm Pagan and leave it at
> that. I do have a specific reason for not being Wiccan (aside from the
fact
> that I just don't agree with everything Wiccans believe) is that organized
> religion of any kind, in my most humble opinion, is a plague on the butt
of
> humanity. I'm not saying Wiccans are bad people at all. I'm saying
> organizing a religion is a bad thing. Just my opinion.
>
It is said that doing what works for you is the only basis for your
personal belief system, (or lack of one). This is true to a point. That
point is a critical self-examination to reveal whether or not those beliefs
rely only upon _faith_ or in practical working processes. No one can
resolve that inward inquiry except you.
Others can and often will object to the external imposition of
'that-which-does-not-work' upon another. This is precisely why most
non-pagan adherents find comfort in their belief systems and why few will
embark on a road less travelled.
Trevor (wearing out my boots) N.
> ~G~
t_naismith
> "Gavyn" wrote:
That's true, Gavyn - she is merely a dabbler. She has attempted to
assert that she is capable of _teaching_ those arts in which she dabbles,
however, (see her archived posts for details).
> ***...and I don't change every week.
Not literally every "week", just very often, (if it matters - and it
doesn't really).
> *** I am a
> christian, theosophist and witch true...
That is an inherently false claim to 'labels'. Pre-emptively, your
previous attempts to redefine existing concepts, ("christian",
"theosophist", "witch" and the omitted "shaman"), notwithstanding do more to
negate your empty assertions than to support them.
> *** ...I also am curious about many
> other faiths and practises but no I do not state adeptship in any of
> those.
You are a dabbler, nothing more. Your pretenses are not whitewashed by
your lies, Blenda.
> *** Jani has her own personal problem with me and has been lying about
> me for over two years now. I have never put down any other faith or
> culture ..yet she believes I have out of her own misunderstanding and does
> not give up this notion so quickly..much to her own detriment.
Brenda, Brenda ... what have your Quaker associations told you about
"bearing false witness"? *tch tch* Gavyn has said that he has no interest
in the personal squabble aspect of this matter. If he wants to find out
where and how you've lied, he can look in the archived posts and decide for
himself, okay?
> *** Be assured
> I don't read her posts unless they get attached onto another persons
> post..same with Trev and Kate..both who also have a problem with me
> because they don't understand my mindset and hate the fact that I think
> outside the box.
That was humorous, Blenda. Trying to slip your ad hominems in to the
same sentence where you tell Gavyn you won't respond to rebuttals was a fine
example for him. Now he won't have to dig through so many of your similar
posts to find supporting evidence of my contentions. Oh and you don't
_think outside any boxes_ merely because you claim false labels. To think
outside the box, you must first realize that you are in one. You haven't
reached such a realization as yet, (by your own posts), and ramain a
dabbler.
> *** Apart from all this..your quess is as good as mine. The
> obsession with me is what I find curious at times.
>
Obsession, eh? Tell you what, Blenda; you cease pulling lies and
pseudo-condescensions out of wherever they spring forth from and the
refutations of your crap will cease. Naturally, you are unable to think
outside of the box of your self-delusions and that isn't likely to happen
anytime soon.
>
> > I have my own belief system. I guess you could call me a Witch if you
> > wished, though I personally tend to shy away from labels. They're *so*
> > constricting and the person begins to be defined by the label rather
than
> > the other way around (the person defining the label and changing it as
> > her/his system changes over time). I simply say I'm Pagan and leave it
at
> > that. I do have a specific reason for not being Wiccan (aside from the
fact
> > that I just don't agree with everything Wiccans believe) is that
organized
> > religion of any kind, in my most humble opinion, is a plague on the butt
of
> > humanity. I'm not saying Wiccans are bad people at all. I'm saying
> > organizing a religion is a bad thing. Just my opinion.
> >
> *****I at times think about dispensing with the labels as I too find them
> constricting but then I also find that it causes people to perhaps think
> outside the box as well when they see a witch who is also a
> christian....it makes them stop and think....whether they feel I am
> crazy...or have something...it at least makes them stop and think.
>
You'll need a qualified doctor to assess the aspects of your
_craziness_, Brenda. All we can do here is to read your posts and refute
the wacked ideas you emit from time to time.
> > ~G~
>
> ***Blessings and nice to get to know you,
> Bren., the dabbler
>
> Ps. If you understand Theosophy...I think one would understand how I can
> both be a witch and christian.
>
Theosophy is merely christianity in different underwear. What Gavyn
and others had been vaguely curious about, it seems, is reconciling the
"witch" label you've appended to the others in your dabblings, Blenda.
TN (eye of Falcon)
Parse Tree
I can see you're neither a Christian nor a Witch.
t_naismith
> I used to practice a mixed bag of religions, and I think that my
> system did me perfectly fine for who I was at that time. And I am sure
> that many over in alt.magick practice some sort of mix of Christianity
> and Withcraft (they just use different terminologies).
>
It isn't a _terminology_ contention. It is one of elemental, core
differences - not superficialities.
> I see nothing wrong with Brenda working these different systems. We
> have to fulfill ourselves with what we need and with what works for us.
>
Sure, she pretend to use any sort of thing she wishes to dabble in.
It's when she tries to palm off her dabblings as some kind of _insight_ or
sufficient understanding to claim that she can _teach_ these arts that she's
going to get refuted. Is there a problem with that or should lies be let
lie?
TN
t_naismith
> t_naismith wrote:
>
> >
> > You forgot Quaker, pseudo-shaman and cult-ural thief and promoter of
> > _all-is-one one-wayism_, Blenda. Who knows what load of nonsense you'll
> > claim next week!
>
>
> She is finding herself.
>
She has a long journey if she's lost herself.
> She may be going about it in a much different way then you found your
> proper system, but maybe you got lucky and found what was right for
> you right away.
>
The major difference here, hY, is that I didn't hold the pretenses which
Brenda does, along the way. Even now, I have none of her pretenses and
merely do what I do. Part of what I am doing here is to oppose her dabbling
nonsense. Certainly anyone can explore at will; it is those who delude
themselves and then attempt to delude others who will find opposition.
> Or, perhaps she is meant to take the long broad approach, and not dive
> too deeply into any certain form, at least not for now.
>
It really doesn't matter. From what she's posted over six or so years,
her _seeking_ is in vain due to her lack of a vital aspect of the seeker.
TN
Maxie P. Diddly
> Theosophy is merely christianity in different underwear.
This is not necessarily true. Theosophy embraces many religions. In
the east, you can call yourself a Buddhist and a Christian. It is
quite common for people to adhere to multiple religions, in fact.
This is not so common in the west, nor is it as well accepted.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.504 / Virus Database: 302 - Release Date: 7/24/2003
t_naismith
> "hY" wrote:
> > "kate" wrote:
> >
> > > Gavyn, I can really only speak for myself.
> > > The problem with Brenda is mostly her lying, changing stories, trying
to
> > > force her will on all of us, her pretenses, her condescension and her
> > > backpeddling.
> >
>
> ***there is no lying...
Google archives of your own posts indicate that you are lying about
lying, Brenda.
> ***there is no changing stories...
Shall we review the "Cornish Famtrad" debacle which you instigated under
the false auspices of some pseudo-shamanistic "ravenings" to substantiate
the fact that you do, indeed, change stories?
> ***...and there is no
> force..infact it is up to you to decide to read my posts.
No, there is only your attempts to _force_ disparate paradigms together
under a superficial "unity" of one-wayism.
> *** My pretenses?
Yes, you know - the ones where you pretend to be capable of _teaching_
occult arts. There are others but, that will do for now.
>.*** ..my condescension? what would you call putting someone down all the
time?
Look Brenda, you have an obvious problem with the sequence of events.
What happened before, in the order in which it occurred, was this: You
popped off with some wild assertions and claims, next thing you know folks
are refuting those as empty and false, and *then* you got condescending with
them. See? Once you have it in proper sequence, it all falls into place,
(for any save, you).
> is this any better? backpeddling? if trying to explain something so that
> others will understand it better is seen as backpeddling then so be it.
>
Your own posts cast you as a backpeddling dabbler who asserts false
claims, Blenda. Your subsequent lies do nothing to change your previous "o
p i n i o n s".
> > While your assessment is honest in its own right, you have to remember
> > that it is very difficult for some people to be forced into a rigid
> > straight path.
> >
> ***every one finds God...or whatever in their own way.
>
There was no "rigid straight path" mentioned, except by hY. As to
"finding god", who says that is the objective? You, Brenda? How
presumptious of you!
> > She may seem to be changing stories to someone who has a rigid thought
> > pattern and belief system. But her system is very honest to those that
> > are not rigid in belief patterns.
> >
>
> ****it also comes down to approaching me from a certain standpoint so that
> you don't even TRY to listen or understand what I have to say...just
> having fun bonding with others in fitting oneself into the like her..don't
> like her camps.
>
Here you show a complete lack of understanding arw dynamics, Blenda.
You appear to think that others cannot _understand_ you when, in fact, they
do. That's what causes you to always remain the dabbler who cannot see
beyond the superficial. This is also how you avoid looking at these aspects
of yourself and cling, with a deathgrip, to your delusions. You are welcome
to them, just stop inflicting them on others. Much to your seeming dismay,
there are no "camps" who oppose your miasma; there are only separate
individuals who do so.
> > i.e., she doesn't have a rigid bound system that fits your definition.
> > Yet, it is obviously a system in that she can hold on to it, and it
> > doesn't fall apart when challenged.
>
Blenda has said she does not read or reply to posts from specific
posters which challenge her beliefs. They go unchallenged, at least in her
own little world. Upon the merest challenge given, they are shown to
collapse like stands of straw in the breeze. What she clings to is an
illusion.
> ***thankyou!
>
> > > She cares for no one and nothing but herself underneath the phoney
> > > expressions of 'love and light', and espouses a different view of her
> > > beliefs Very often.
> >
> ****No I love everyone. You can understand it....I understand that...but I
> do. If it is phoney to you..then so be it. You give a flower to someone
> with a closed fist and the flower falls to the ground..however the intent
> is still there.
>
Your own posts show that this "love and light" act is as falicious and
superficial as your other assertions and claims. Rejecting anything
"phoney" coming from you is a pleasure, not a loss.
> > Maybe her expressions are not phony to her, and only seem phony to
> > people that don't think the way she does?
> >
Blenda is entitled to lying to herself, there are no problems with that.
The ruckus begins when she tries to lie to others.
> > Could she really continue going on the way she is, with all of you
> > fighting against her, if this wasn't an intrinsic and genuine part of
her?
> >
Blenda *must* hold onto her self-delusions as tightly as she does. Were
she to actually see them as the superficialities that they are, she'd go
right over that edge she is teetering so precariously on.
> ****and sadly I see so little of this now...that it is totally in their
> world...I am going on..loving people and getting to know them and
> listening to others ideas and such. I have never been one to do what the
> crowd does as I am not fond of that mentality...so I do what everyone can
> do....skip those posts.
>
What a load of specious crap, "Bren"! You skip that which you cannot
refute because those posts challenge your nonsense.
> Bren.cowering in fear & dabbling on
TN (eye of Falcon)
t_naismith
> "t_naismith" wrote:
> > "Parse Tree" wrote:
> > > "The Talesinator" wrote:
> > > > "kate" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > : "A rose by any other name' wouldn't combine Christianity with
> > > witchcraft,
> > > > : for sure.
> > > >
> > > > I happen to know someone who does exactly that
> > >
> > > Wait, I didn't see this before. What's wrong with combining
> > > Christianity with witchcraft?
> > >
> > Core disparities at the elemental, rather than the superficial
> level.
> >
> > HTH-
> > TN
>
> I can see you're neither a Christian nor a Witch.
>
christian. As for the other half; it depends on what you mean by "witch",
doesn't it?
t_naismith
> "t_naismith" wrote:
>
> > Theosophy is merely christianity in different underwear.
>
> This is not necessarily true. Theosophy embraces many religions. In
> the east, you can call yourself a Buddhist and a Christian. It is
> quite common for people to adhere to multiple religions, in fact.
> This is not so common in the west, nor is it as well accepted.
>
>
come in many colors and sizes, hence the appeal it holds for Brenda. This
does not bode well for it's validity.
TN
t_naismith
> "hY" wrote:
> > "t_naismith" wrote:
> >
> > [ ... ]
> >
> > > You forgot Quaker, pseudo-shaman and cult-ural thief and promoter
of
> > > _all-is-one one-wayism_, Blenda. Who knows what load of nonsense
you'll
> > > claim next week!
> >
> > She is finding herself.
>
> ***actually if people read my responses they will see that I talk about my
> ancestors who some of which are Quakers ...
That is slightly disengenious, Brenda. You've said you were/are a
participant in Quaker friendship 'religious' meetings. This is only
relevant in regards to your other false claims, however.
> ***...shamanism? since I am talking
> about Core Shamanics that has nothing to do with cultural theft if you
> understand Core Shamanics...
There is no "ravening", even in your pseudo-"Core Shamanics". The
cult-ural theft spoken of is in reference to your taking superficial aspects
of other culturals and claiming to practice some pseudo-variant of them.
> ***...so I do hope you learn.
Here's some of that condescension you've claimed not to engage in - in
this very thread! Wow!!
> ***I have no one-way_ism and never had.
Oh? Just because you don't characterize the whole superficial _unity_
spiel of yours as one-wayist does not make it so. Perhaps your _ism_ would
be better described as some sort of _all-ways-are-one wayism_ then.
> ***I am always talking about each persons right to their won
> belief system and respect going to each person.
I've posted to hY that you can believe any sort of wacked out nonsense that
you like, just stop inflicting them on others and expecting no rebuttal.
> *** Finding myself? hmmmmm goodness..I hope eventually to lose mySELF! :D
>
Yes, that is the essential contention here. You apparently desire to use
some admixture of practices and beliefs to achieve dissolution of yourSelf.
That is and was not the purpose of such alchemies. Even further, your
attempts to use them in this manner are doomed to failure.
> > She may be going about it in a much different way then you found your
> > proper system, but maybe you got lucky and found what was right for
> > you right away.
> >
> > Or, perhaps she is meant to take the long broad approach, and not dive
> > too deeply into any certain form, at least not for now.
> >
>
> ***or perhaps I am just doing something in a different way that you cannot
> understand?
Your pseudo-superficialities are not that difficult to grasp, Blenda.
What seems to tick you off is that they *are* easily understood and
disagreed with. That gnaws on you, doesn't it?
> *** I personally see the source as the soil and we all have our
> roots in it..no matter what kind of flower we are. This is me..I don't ask
> that others think as me...but only to allow us all to form our own
> beliefs.
>
There is a world of difference between separate-yet-connected and
all-is-one. You are lost between those worlds.
TN (eye of Falcon)
> Blen
Parse Tree
The point is that it doesn't take much to be a Christian. You only have
to accept Christ, you don't have to believe in the Bible, even.
Brenda G. Kent
>
> "t_naismith" <t_nai...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:bg4imk$k5gn1$1...@ID-140581.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
> > Theosophy is merely christianity in different underwear.
>
***No You obviously don't understand Theosophy.
> This is not necessarily true. Theosophy embraces many religions. In
> the east, you can call yourself a Buddhist and a Christian. It is
> quite common for people to adhere to multiple religions, in fact.
> This is not so common in the west, nor is it as well accepted.
>
***yes...Theosophy looks at the roots that connect us
all...religion,science, etc. Many Theosophist see connections at the root
of all religions..that does not mean that they dismiss the
differences..but that they see similarities even more so.
Blessings
Bren.
--
t_naismith
> "t_naismith" wrote:
>
> <schnippen excellent response, as usual><er, the response part...>
>
Thanks, DiamondLil. :->
> > There is a world of difference between separate-yet-connected and
> >all-is-one. You are lost between those worlds.
>
> Very well put. Doubt she'll appreciate it, though.
>
It wasn't for her ... she's off "finding herself so she can lose
herSelf". ;p
> ~L
>
> "Why should Death lurk in the shadows? Why should
> Death wait at the gate? There is no bedchamber, no
> ballroom that I cannot enter. Death in the glow of the
> hearth, Death on tiptoe in the corridor, that is what I
> am. Speak to me of the Dark Gifts - I use them."
Helluva sig, Lil. :-}
T~
The Talesinator
"Parse Tree" <acc...@domain.extension> wrote in message
news:l6bVa.2117$537.2...@news20.bellglobal.com...
: "The Talesinator" <the_wi...@XyahooX.com> wrote in message
: news:K61Va.42014$7O4.8...@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
: >
: > "kate" <tyle...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
: > news:bg0o86$jg65u$1...@ID-140581.news.uni-berlin.de...
: > : "A rose by any other name' wouldn't combine Christianity with
: witchcraft,
: > : for sure.
: >
: > I happen to know someone who does exactly that
:
: Wait, I didn't see this before. What's wrong with combining
: Christianity with witchcraft?
If you are a true xian, you would have to kill yourself
--
Talesin- The Bad Boy of Witchcraft (tm)
The following statement is true
The above statement is false
http://home.kc.rr.com/pendragonsloft
Get your daily Dragon: http://www.pendragonsloft.blogspot.com/
© 2003 by Talesin- The Bad Boy of Witchcraft. All rights reserved
William Tucker
as all the others are false christianities
or youcould just say that taking what jesus said as the long and the short
of being what a christian was and then pagans would be christian ss too
only the deluded use definitions to determine if their head is on fire
arguing beliefs and names is for children
what jesus said many have said in other languages
as he was talking about reality in general....not about what he owned
like pointing at a cloud and saying cloud...not my cloud just cloud
get it
hY
I think it's the other way around. When you go to church, they tell
you this stuff is evil. But as you look around and ask questions, you
find out its not so bad after all, and some actually support you.
t_naismith
> > "t_naismith" wrote:
> >
> > > Theosophy is merely christianity in different underwear.
> >
>
> ***No You obviously don't understand Theosophy.
>
christian colors. What makes you think I don't understand Blavatsky's
blatherings? How do you know what I know and don't post about? {and don't
try pulling this with me, Blenda - it won't wash, we can see what nonsense
you post about}.
> > This is not necessarily true. Theosophy embraces many religions. In
> > the east, you can call yourself a Buddhist and a Christian. It is
> > quite common for people to adhere to multiple religions, in fact.
> > This is not so common in the west, nor is it as well accepted.
> >
> ***yes...Theosophy looks at the roots that connect us
> all...religion,science, etc. Many Theosophist see connections at the root
> of all religions..
Those aren't _roots_beneath surfaces, they're reflections of branching
twigs above ground.
> ***...that does not mean that they dismiss the
> differences..but that they see similarities even more so.
>
Uh-huh.
> Blessings
No thanks, they're false.
TN (eye of Falcon)
> Blen.
t_naismith
>
> [ ... ]
>
> > What's wrong with combining Christianity with witchcraft?
> > > > >
> > > > "t_naismith" wrote:
> > > > Core disparities at the elemental, rather than the
> superficial
> > > level.
> > > >
> > > > HTH-
> > >
> > > I can see you're neither a Christian nor a Witch.
> > >
> > Then you need to check into glasses - you're half-right, I'm no
> > christian. As for the other half; it depends on what you mean by
> "witch",
> > doesn't it?
>
> The point is that it doesn't take much to be a Christian. You only have
> to accept Christ, you don't have to believe in the Bible, even.
>
>
You're right about that too, it doesn't seem to take much for someone
to call themselves "christian" or "theosophist". Sort of devalues the
terms, as far as they've been expressed goes.
Maxie P. Diddly
"William Tucker" <wmft...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:24mVa.25995$Mc.20...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> actually only if you were a catholic christian
>
> as all the others are false christianities
Er, no. Catholicism is just as false as any other version, if not
more so.
t_naismith
Hmm ... your segue does nothing to support your hypothesis that "it's
the other way around". Namely, that you are essentially stating that the
disparities are superficial and implying _core_ or elemental similarities
between christianity and witchcraft. This premise is not supported. Would
you care to elaborate?
TN
hY
> You can't "be" jewish one day, and "be"
> muslim the next, and "be" trad by the weekend
Sure you can.
Jani
> > > "Jani" wrote:
> > > > "t_naismith" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > "The Talesinator" wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I guess that's why I am so hesitant to buy into the bashing of
> > people
> > > > like
> > > > > > Brenda or Ballard.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Instead, you'd rather bash just about everyone besides those
two
> > > > > nutbags - so you can appear to be "not following a _herd_", eh?
> How's
> > > > that
> > > > > delusion working out for you, Tales-end?
> > > >
> > > > Interesting that he allies himself with the two people who
> consistently
> > > > attempt to misrepresent and malign witches and pagans on Usenet.
> > Evidently
> > > > he thinks it's quite acceptable to perpetrate false claims of
lineage,
> > > > cultural theft, associations of Wicca with pseudo-satanic abuse,
etc,
> > > etc -
> > > > and that such people should not be "bashed" for doing so.
> > > >
> > > > Jani
> > > >
> > > Hey, if he wants to support them for standing up for those types
> > > of_beliefs_, he can. It is a very telling thing for Tales-end to do
and
> a
> > > sort of 'kiss of death' for those he supports in that way.
> >
> > Oh, certainly it's telling. I have no problem with him changing his
> > allegiances every five minutes, it's part of his shit-stirring tactics.
> But
> > specifically supporting the people who try and undermine craft and
> paganism
> > from an outsiders' perspective is very .... appropriate, for him.
> >
>
> Hmm ... then you see this as going beyond his usual "superficial
support
> for those opposed to those he opposes" tactic? The undermining of
paganism
> and those of the crafts from without has been tried before. Likely, it
will
> continue, however, it is less effective than undermining from within would
> be. This is why there will always be solitaries.
General support for those who stand up for themselves and their beliefs
(whatever those beliefs may be) is one thing. Singling out individuals whose
stances are actually detrimental to paganism is another. Those who defend
their own faith *and* are supportive of paganism, such as Janet, he attacks.
Jani
t_naismith
t_naismith
> > > > > "t_naismith" wrote:
>
> [ ... ]
I'm undecided as to whether he does so out of an _agenda_ or just to
stir shit, as you say.
> Those who defend
> their own faith *and* are supportive of paganism, such as Janet, he
attacks.
>
To be fair, he attacks her beliefs and mostly refrains from attacking
her person. For the most part.
> Jani
> Trev
Maxie P. Diddly
> "Maxie P. Diddly" wrote:
> > "t_naismith" wrote:
> >
> > > Theosophy is merely christianity in different underwear.
> >
> > This is not necessarily true. Theosophy embraces many religions.
In
> > the east, you can call yourself a Buddhist and a Christian. It is
> > quite common for people to adhere to multiple religions, in fact.
> > This is not so common in the west, nor is it as well accepted.
> >
> >
> You're right. I stand somewhat corrected.
Not really. Your point is still valid.
> Theosophical underwear can
> come in many colors and sizes, hence the appeal it holds for Brenda.
This
> does not bode well for it's validity.
Heh. As someone who has studied it, I agree.
Brenda G. Kent
>
> "Parse Tree" <acc...@domain.extension> wrote in message
> news:l6bVa.2117$537.2...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> : "The Talesinator" <the_wi...@XyahooX.com> wrote in message
> : news:K61Va.42014$7O4.8...@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> : >
> : > "kate" <tyle...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> : > news:bg0o86$jg65u$1...@ID-140581.news.uni-berlin.de...
> : > : "A rose by any other name' wouldn't combine Christianity with
> : witchcraft,
> : > : for sure.
> : >
> : > I happen to know someone who does exactly that
> :
> : Wait, I didn't see this before. What's wrong with combining
> : Christianity with witchcraft?
>
> If you are a true xian, you would have to kill yourself
>
***what is a "true xian"? do all Christians agree with your view? which
Christian tradition is the "real" one.
Bren.
Brenda G. Kent
*****in agreement. If you read mysticism of all the Book faiths..you will
see a close connection. These mysticisms are said by some to be the inner
way or Core beginnings of the book faiths.
IN my opinion.
t_naismith
> > > "t_naismith" wrote:
> > >
> > > > Theosophy is merely christianity in different underwear.
> > >
> > > This is not necessarily true. Theosophy embraces many religions.
> In
> > > the east, you can call yourself a Buddhist and a Christian. It is
> > > quite common for people to adhere to multiple religions, in fact.
> > > This is not so common in the west, nor is it as well accepted.
> > >
> > >
> > You're right. I stand somewhat corrected.
>
> Not really. Your point is still valid.
>
Heh. Partly right is still partly wrong, I can cop to that when it
happens.
> > Theosophical underwear can
> > come in many colors and sizes, hence the appeal it holds for Brenda.
> This
> > does not bode well for it's validity.
>
> Heh. As someone who has studied it, I agree.
>
Uh-oh, Blenda and hY are in for an screenfull from someone who knows the
subject matter then. This does not bode well again. ;)
TN
Maxie P. Diddly
"hY" <hybi...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:3F260E8D...@shaw.ca...
Tell us how you would do it, then.
t_naismith
> > "Parse Tree" <acc...@domain.extension> wrote:
> > : "The Talesinator" <the_wi...@XyahooX.com> wrote:
> > : >
> > : > "kate" <tyle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > : > : "A rose by any other name' wouldn't combine Christianity with
> > : witchcraft,
> > : > : for sure.
> > : >
> > : > I happen to know someone who does exactly that
> > :
> > : Wait, I didn't see this before. What's wrong with combining
> > : Christianity with witchcraft?
> >
> > If you are a true xian, you would have to kill yourself
>
> ***what is a "true xian"?
He posted that a true xian is a dead one. Do you only pay attention
when he supports your half-baked nonsense?
> ***do all Christians agree with your view?
Obviously, they cannot agree or disagree - being dead and all.
> ***which
> Christian tradition is the "real" one.
>
The one with the deceased adherents. You are quite slow on the uptake,
Blenda.
TN
> Blen.
Jani
"Gavyn" <ga...@outbc.com> wrote in message
news:jydVa.1284$rH....@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "Jani" <ja...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:VxbVa.1791$lz6.18...@news-text.cableinet.net...
> :
> *SNIP*
> :
> : Well, put it this way. Can you learn enough of the history, theory and
> : practice of a belief system in a single day to embrace it, practise it,
> : reject it, and then go on to the next? Of course not, the most you could
> do
> : would be to scratch the surface. You can't "be" jewish one day, and "be"
> : muslim the next, and "be" trad by the weekend, although you could
> certainly
> : spend the week finding out some superficial elements about all of them.
> :
> *SNIP*
>
> Okay, now I see where you're coming from. I'm in total agreement with
you.
> To a point anyway.
>
> Sometimes, for someone to find a path that is truly right for them, they
do
> simply scratch the surface of many systems until they find something that
> "fits" them or develope their own belief system while borrowing a bit from
> others. Scratching the surface is often enough to know that going deeper
> would be useless because the surface is already in contention with one's
> belief system. In *that* sense, scratching the surface is perfectly fine.
Absolutely. And knowing a reasonable amount about different systems, even if
you don't follow them yourself at the end of the day, goes some way towards
breaking down the mutual incomprehension and animosity between them. It
still amazes me to come across christians who know nothing of modern
paganism, muslims who know nothing of christianity, and so on, because I'm
so accustomed to hanging around with people from various paths and,
basically, being nosey about them :)
> However, were someone to read a book about, say, Thelema, and then claim
to
> be a well-studied and experienced Thelemite, *that* would be complete
bogus.
This is precisely what I'm complaining about ...
>
> I think we're actually on the same page here, just took a bit of hashing
to
> figure that out is all.
> My philosophy is live and let live, and discuss as much as you can along
the
> way so that we can all learn from one another and take what we will from
the
> discourse. For example, I was under the impression that Brenda was being
> attacked simply because she professes to be a practicing "Christian
> theosophical witch." While that phrase confuses the bejubbers out of me,
to
> each her/his own.
I find christianity and witchcraft incompatible, whether you take
"witchcraft" as being part of wicca or as being a system of craft
independent of any belief system, for the simple reason that christianity
forbids both. That said, there's nothing to stop wiccans, witches or pagans
following some of the christian precepts - ethical systems based on
religions often have common elements, after all - or in them finding
numerous points of academic interest in christian scriptures.
However, if she is indeed saying this week that's what
> she is, and next week she professes to be well-studied and experienced in
> some other system, then of course something is rotten.
It's also disturbing when someone claims knowledge and experience in a
system, is totally unable to substantiate those claims when they encounter
someone who actually *is* a practitioner, and in the meantime has adopted
the label and presents themselves as a teacher of said system. Particularly
when they boast of having students IRL. One of the major gripes about modern
paganism, both on the ngs and RL, is the proliferation of highly dubious
little cults and fake "teachers" who spring up like mushrooms.
> I have my own belief system.
Yes, I did see your other post, but it had gone off the server before I had
chance to reply :(
I guess you could call me a Witch if you
> wished, though I personally tend to shy away from labels. They're *so*
> constricting and the person begins to be defined by the label rather than
> the other way around (the person defining the label and changing it as
> her/his system changes over time). I simply say I'm Pagan and leave it at
> that.
I don't use either label. "Witch" has gone down a rapid slippery slope from
hag-on-broomstick to mindless-crystal-jammer and "pagan" gets used as a
catch-all for anyone who doesn't strictly adhere to the Big Six, so the only
time I would self-define as either is in very specific contexts, when
talking to particular people.
I do have a specific reason for not being Wiccan (aside from the fact
> that I just don't agree with everything Wiccans believe) is that organized
> religion of any kind, in my most humble opinion, is a plague on the butt
of
> humanity. I'm not saying Wiccans are bad people at all. I'm saying
> organizing a religion is a bad thing. Just my opinion.
Some degree of organisation and structure is fine, but once it gets to the
point that spiritual development and training disappears under the weight of
the structure, you've had it. To paraphrase Pterry, you start with a god,
then you build such an enormous and complicated building around it that
eventually everyone worships the building, and never notices that the god's
died in the meantime.
Jani
t_naismith
> "hY" wrote:
> > t_naismith wrote:
> > > "Parse Tree" wrote:
>
> > > What's wrong with combining
> > >>Christianity with witchcraft?
> > >
> > > Core disparities at the elemental, rather than the superficial
level.
> >
> > I think it's the other way around. When you go to church, they tell
> > you this stuff is evil. But as you look around and ask questions, you
> > find out its not so bad after all, and some actually support you.
> >
> *****in agreement. If you read mysticism of all the Book faiths..you will
> see a close connection.
Weren't you the one who recently posted about not being an adherent to
the book religions? In any case, such "books" are irrelevant to the core
disparities at the elemental level between christianity and witchcraft.
Here's a hint; one is a _craft_ and the other is not.
> *****These mysticisms are said by some to be the inner
> way or Core beginnings of the book faiths.
>
These "mysticisms" are ... what, exactly?
> IN my opinion.
> Bren.
Your _opinion_ continues to be as weightless as a hydrogen atom between
stars, Blenda.
TN (eye of Falcon)
Jani
As to the personal issues between you and Jani, or
> between anyone here for that matter, I really want no part of that. It's
> none of my business and in my opinion is really misplaced in terms of
being
> posted on a newsgroup. I have been online since there was a line to be
on,
> and I believe in the traditional netiquette method of "taking it to
private"
> (private e-mails or chat) when it comes to personal disagreements.
I think you'll find that there is a great deal of business conducted in
public on arw, it's just the way of the group. But in this particular
instance, if something is posted publicly then it needs to be refuted
publicly, especially where it's a matter of extreme disrespect and blatant
lies about others. As to netiquette, it's considered unacceptable by the
majority here to post private email, and therefore if issues are discussed
on-group, it's a lot easier to go back to google and establish what was
actually said.
Jani
Jani
I hope slitch didn't notice that, or we'll have the silly bitch claiming
she's a chaos mage by tomorrow.
Jani
Jani
No, there are plenty of personal attacks on her lifestyle, her sexuality,
her friends - she just refuses to rise to the bait.
Jani
t_naismith
> "t_naismith" wrote:
> > "hY" wrote:
> > > Jani wrote:
> > >
> > > > You can't "be" jewish one day, and "be"
> > > > muslim the next, and "be" trad by the weekend
> > >
> > > Sure you can.
> > >
> > Only in a superficial, chaote-changing-paradigms-like-socks sort of
> way.
>
> I hope slitch didn't notice that, or we'll have the silly bitch claiming
> she's a chaos mage by tomorrow.
>
'have many friends who are chaos magicians'. We may be spared this since
she currently pretends not to read/reply to those who challenge her
pretensions.
> Jani
Trev (nothing against Relayer, eh bud?) N. ;)
t_naismith
on the ratios). If she doesn't rise to the bait, the lures get changed,
eh? ;)
Trev (not a fisherman) N.
Jani
Ostrich mode on, aye ...
>
> > Jani
> Trev (nothing against Relayer, eh bud?) N. ;)
Since he appears to be happily married, unfortunately not *grin*
Jani
Jani
Up to a point, but there's a very limited range of lures there - mostly
variations on "get yer tits out" *g*
Jani
t_naismith
> > > "t_naismith" wrote:
> > > > "hY" wrote:
> > > > > Jani wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > You can't "be" jewish one day, and "be"
> > > > > > muslim the next, and "be" trad by the weekend
> > > > >
> > > > > Sure you can.
> > > > >
> > > > Only in a superficial, chaote-changing-paradigms-like-socks sort
of
> > > way.
> > >
> > > I hope slitch didn't notice that, or we'll have the silly bitch
claiming
> > > she's a chaos mage by tomorrow.
>
> > What's surprising is that she hasn't done so by now, or claimed to
> > 'have many friends who are chaos magicians'. We may be spared this
since
> > she currently pretends not to read/reply to those who challenge her
> > pretensions.
>
> Ostrich mode on, aye ...
> >
Of course, someone she may read could reply to this portion of the thread
... one never knows.
> > (nothing against Relayer, eh bud?) ;)
>
> Since he appears to be happily married, unfortunately not *grin*
>
Er, I'm almost positive I meant the chaos magick thing. Yes! That was
it alright. ::grinning::
> Jani
> Trev
t_naismith
stats
> > on the ratios). If she doesn't rise to the bait, the lures get
changed,
> > eh? ;)
>
> Up to a point, but there's a very limited range of lures there - mostly
> variations on "get yer tits out" *g*
>
Church, it's history and general philosophies, in discussions with Janet.
> Jani
> Trev
Jani
He'll get nowhere with that. Not surprisingly, Janet *knows* her
christianity :)
Jani
Parse Tree
>
> "Gavyn" <ga...@outbc.com> wrote in message
> news:jydVa.1284$rH....@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com...
> >
along
> the
> > way so that we can all learn from one another and take what we will
from
> the
> > discourse. For example, I was under the impression that Brenda was
being
> > attacked simply because she professes to be a practicing "Christian
> > theosophical witch." While that phrase confuses the bejubbers out
of me,
> to
> > each her/his own.
>
> I find christianity and witchcraft incompatible, whether you take
> "witchcraft" as being part of wicca or as being a system of craft
> independent of any belief system, for the simple reason that
christianity
> forbids both. That said, there's nothing to stop wiccans, witches or
pagans
> following some of the christian precepts - ethical systems based on
> religions often have common elements, after all - or in them finding
> numerous points of academic interest in christian scriptures.
The bible isn't a necessary part of Christianity.
Jani
"Parse Tree" <acc...@domain.extension> wrote in message
OK, how do you define christianity if you leave the bible completely out of
it?
Jani
Brenda G. Kent
>
> "t_naismith" <t_nai...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:bg4ma0$koiai$1...@ID-140581.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > "Maxie P. Diddly" wrote:
> > > "t_naismith" wrote:
> > >
> > > > Theosophy is merely christianity in different underwear.
> > >
> > > This is not necessarily true. Theosophy embraces many religions.
> In
> > > the east, you can call yourself a Buddhist and a Christian. It is
> > > quite common for people to adhere to multiple religions, in fact.
> > > This is not so common in the west, nor is it as well accepted.
> > >
> > >
> > You're right. I stand somewhat corrected.
>
> Not really. Your point is still valid.
>
> > Theosophical underwear can
> > come in many colors and sizes, hence the appeal it holds for Brenda.
> This
> > does not bode well for it's validity.
****the basic thought behind Theosophy is what I enjoy...study and
comparison of all faiths,philosophies and sciences and finding the common
strings that unite us all. As far as the validity? I read and study with a
healthy dose of caution as I do anything.
>
> Heh. As someone who has studied it, I agree.
>
>
***different strokes for different folks.
Brenda G. Kent
****and interpretation of the words is up for all people to figure out
themselves. I figure I am a Christian..not a biblicist in that I take
to the
spirit of the word not the letter...heh..as it even states in the Bible
weirdly!
To me the concept of Christ is what matters most...not what other folks
tell me I am supposed to believe. I am learning from Christ...not all of
its followers...which makes me just as much a Christian as anyone.
Maxie P. Diddly
"Brenda G. Kent" <wt...@victoria.tc.ca> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.56.03...@vtn1.victoria.tc.ca...
> ****and interpretation of the words is up for all people to figure
out
> themselves. I figure I am a Christian..not a biblicist in that I
take
> to the
> spirit of the word not the letter...heh..as it even states in the
Bible
> weirdly!
> To me the concept of Christ is what matters most...not what other
folks
> tell me I am supposed to believe. I am learning from Christ...not
all of
> its followers...which makes me just as much a Christian as anyone.
> Bren.
And less of a witch?
Brenda G. Kent
>
> "Brenda G. Kent" <wt...@victoria.tc.ca> wrote in message
> news:Pine.GSO.4.56.03...@vtn1.victoria.tc.ca...
>
> > ****and interpretation of the words is up for all people to figure
> out
> > themselves. I figure I am a Christian..not a biblicist in that I
> take
> > to the
> > spirit of the word not the letter...heh..as it even states in the
> Bible
> > weirdly!
> > To me the concept of Christ is what matters most...not what other
> folks
> > tell me I am supposed to believe. I am learning from Christ...not
> all of
> > its followers...which makes me just as much a Christian as anyone.
> > Bren.
>
> And less of a witch?
>
***not at all. I don't see them as opposite sides of the coin...so I don't
see one involvement or belief taking away from another. Christianity is a
faith...being a witch is ....well....being a witch...belief in deity
need not
even enter into it.